(PC) Driver v. Kern County Superior Court ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BILLY DRIVER, No. 2: 20-cv-1665 JAM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 KERN VALLEY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 19 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.) 20 Named as defendants are California Medical Facility (“CMF”) Dr. Bansal, CMF Dr. 21 Shute, Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) “drug prescriber” Maya and KVSP psychiatrist Dr. 22 Rauf. 23 Plaintiff alleges that during a health care grievance interview on May 22, 2020, plaintiff 24 told defendant Bansal about the harmful side effects of an anti-psychotic drug prescribed for 25 plaintiff called Invega. Plaintiff asked defendant Bansal to discontinue plaintiff’s prescription for 26 Invega because plaintiff is not psychotic. Defendant Bansal denied plaintiff’s request to 27 discontinue Invega. 28 //// 1 Plaintiff alleges that on June 1, 2020, he submitted a Health Care Request Form notifying 2 defendant Shute that plaintiff had been assaulted and battered by a porter in his cell. In this form, 3 plaintiff requested emergency medical care. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Shute did not respond 4 to this form. 5 Plaintiff alleges that between July 14, 2020 and August 18, 2020, he submitted seven 6 Health Care Services Emergency Requests to defendants Maya and Rauf requesting 7 discontinuation of his Invega prescription due to harmful side effects. Defendants Maya and Rauf 8 denied plaintiff’s request to discontinue Invega. 9 Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered the following side effects from Invega: gynecomastia 10 ducts, borderline diabetes, chest pain, heart palpitation, halitosis, baldness, etc. 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) provides that all persons may be joined in one 12 action as defendants if “any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the 13 alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of 14 transactions or occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise 15 in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). See also George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 16 2007) (“Unrelated claims against unrelated defendants belong in different suits.”) 17 Plaintiff’s claim that defendant Shute denied plaintiff’s request for emergency medical 18 care following the alleged assault is unrelated to the other claims alleged in the amended 19 complaint. For this reason, the undersigned finds that plaintiff’s claims are improperly joined, in 20 violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends 21 dismissal of plaintiff’s claim against defendant Shute as improperly joined. 22 Plaintiff has stated potentially colorable Eighth Amendment claims against defendants 23 Bansal, May and Rauf. The undersigned separately orders service of these defendants. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claim against defendant 25 Shute be dismissed as improperly joined. 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 1 | with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 2 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 3 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 4 | Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 | Dated: January 22, 2021 ° Fens Arn 7 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 Dr1665.56 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28